research libraries pre-print bruce et al 2018.pdf · the studies of melissa dennis 3, saunders 34...

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT

Leading the Academic Library in Strategic Engagement with Stakeholders: A

Constructivist Grounded Theory

Fiona Harland, Corresponding author, Researcher

Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Business, School of Management

2 George Street

Brisbane, Qld 4000

Australia

E-mail: [email protected]

Mobile Phone: 61+403 267 997

Glenn Stewart, Adjunct Professor

Queensland University of Technology (QUT),

Science and Engineering Faculty, School of Information Systems

Brisbane, Australia


Christine Bruce, Dean, Graduate Research

James Cook University,

Townsville, Australia


Accepted: April 18, 2018

Anticipated Publication Date:May 2019

Manuscript#: crl18-1090

Acknowledgments

The first author was a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship and of a

QUT Write-up Scholarship during this research. Ethics clearance was gained from the QUT

Ethics Committee for the conduct of this research (QUT Ethics Approval Number

1400000814).

Abstract

The current diversity and disparate needs of stakeholders present significant challenges to

academic libraries globally. The constructivist grounded theory presented in this paper

recognizes the guiding role of the library director in responding to this problem and the need

for different strategic mechanisms for engagement with various stakeholder groups. Key

contributions of this work include establishing a strategic framework for engagement with

stakeholders and tentative suggestions for various types of university libraries. The

implications of this research include the need for outward-looking library directors, an

evidence-based approach to stakeholder engagement, and the encouragement of a customer-

focused organizational culture amongst staff.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT

Leading the Academic Library in Strategic Engagement with Stakeholders

2

Introduction

Innovation in a service organization such as the academic library requires close engagement

with customers 1,2. The increased technological and service expectations of faculty and

students requires the academic library director to understand their needs and to intensify the

pace of the library’s adoption of technology and innovation in service 3,4. The library director

defines the library’s strategic direction and articulates its vision 5, and therefore, is

responsible for ensuring that the library is engaged with its stakeholders in a way that

satisfies their needs as well as accomplishing the mission of the library. Therefore, this paper

asks, “how does the university library director ensure the library is engaging with its

stakeholders?”

Engagement involves “practices, processes and actions that an organisation must perform to

involve stakeholders in any organisational activity to secure their involvement and

commitment, or reduce their indifference or hostility” 6. Stakeholders are defined as any

person with “an interest; rights (legal or moral); ownership; contribution in the form of

knowledge or support” 7 towards the activity of the library. Therefore, the library director

must ensure that the library’s strategy includes engaging students, faculty and general staff in

the library’s activities, and that stakeholders such as the university administration and donors

are committed to the library as an important contributor to the university’s outcomes.

The library director also plays a leadership role in creating and embedding organizational

culture through personal values, beliefs and actions 8. The library director’s role includes

engaging with the university’s academic and wider community such as heads of faculty,

university administrators and library benefactors9, instilling engagement culture in staff, and

being a model for change to the wider university 10. This is important because the culture of

the organization doing an activity can influence the attitude of stakeholders towards it 11.

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


3

While there is much literature about the various forms of engagement as specified in the

literature review that follows, there is no literature that provides a holistic engagement theory

or model that examines all parts of the library’s stakeholder engagement strategy. A holistic

engagement theory and model is important because it provides an understanding of how

library directors, senior library managers and academic librarians can ensure the library is

continuously engaging with stakeholders. Moreover, this paper specifies how the library

engages with various stakeholder groups such as academic staff and researchers, university

administrators and external stakeholders such as donors and benefactors. This paper is also

unique in providing a visual theoretical model that reminds the library director of the need for

a consistent approach to engagement with stakeholders. Another distinctive aspect of this

paper is the exploration of the experiences of library directors and the comparisons and

contrasts between United States state system universities, and four types of publicly funded

Australian universities.

This paper reports a section of the findings of the research of Fiona Harland 12 and Fiona

Harland, Glenn Stewart and Christine Bruce 13. The theory provides an understanding of how

library directors can ensure their library is holistically and continuously engaging with

stakeholders 14. The theory begins with the agency of the library director in recognizing the

need for the library to know its stakeholders and their requirements, and that the library’s

response is adequate. The library director, with senior library staff, then develops a holistic

engagement framework that is mutually dependent upon an organizational culture that is

actively and continuously engaging with the library’s stakeholders. Various mechanisms then

enable the library to engage with its stakeholder communities in ways that are appropriate to

each group.

The results of this research may have significant impact upon the way different types of

academic libraries engage with their stakeholders, producing a holistic strategic approach and

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


4

encouraging a culture that will facilitate the discovery and introduction of new services. This

research may also affect the way academic libraries recruit or train staff, bearing in mind the

different challenges that face regional and metropolitan universities.

The paper proceeds with a literature review that establishes the need for an engagement

theory and model. Following this is an explanation of constructivist grounded theory research

method and the steps taken to achieve the theory. The findings are then presented, followed

by a discussion of the results.

Literature Review

The concept of engagement with stakeholders is well understood in the library and

information science (LIS) domain. The importance of the academic library’s engagement with its

stakeholders derives from the body of research of A. Parasuraman, who argued that customers

will look elsewhere for their service needs to be met if service does not meet the minimum

level of their zone of tolerance15. However, the role of university library directors in ensuring

their libraries are engaging with all stakeholders in a strategic way is less well understood.

The literature that discusses the individual ways in which academic libraries engage with

their stakeholder groups is voluminous. For example, several studies describe the use of

qualitative and quantitative research methods to investigate the requirements of stakeholders

and the efficacy of the library’s services. These include the recent works of Rachel Esson et

al.16 and Ben Wynne et al.17. The studies of Kayo Denda 18, Kayo Denda and Jennifer Hunter

19, and Mark Robertson 20 identify the contribution academic libraries make toward student

success and teaching and learning. According to Roisin Gwyer 21 and L. Johnson et al.22

academic libraries are using their physical space in a variety of new ways as a means of

engaging with stakeholders. Some studies (Zelda Chatten and Sarah Roughly 23, Geraldine

Delaney and Jessica Bates 24, and Laura Saunders 25) provide evidence that academic libraries

are also engaging with stakeholders through various kinds of social media.

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


5

Another way that academic libraries are engaging is by becoming partners in learning

(Mathew Long and Roger Schonfeld 26, Yvonne Meulemans and Allison Carr 27). The works

of Jared Hoppenfeld and Elizabeth Malafi 28, and Belinda Tiffen and Ashley England 29 find

that academic libraries are also collaborating with faculties in their research endeavors. This

includes using the institutional repository as a publishing tool 30, measuring research impact

31, and disseminating the research capabilities of the university staff. Such engagement also

involves collaborating with researchers to provide metadata about their research and

providing storage for their datasets 32. The studies of Melissa Dennis 33, Saunders 34 and

Shapiro 35 also explore the academic library’s engagement with communities that are external

to the university.

Fewer studies examine the role of university library directors in ensuring their libraries are

engaging with stakeholders. The ethnographic research of Maria Otero-Boisvert 36 explores

the role of the library director in gaining funding from the university administration.

Robertson 37 investigates the perceptions of provosts of Canadian research-intensive

universities about their libraries. The grounded theory research by Linh Cuong Nguyen 38

generated a holistic participatory library model for academic libraries. The participatory

library model was based upon the perceptions of several levels of librarians and students.

While related to this paper in producing a holistic approach to user participation or

engagement, Nguyen’s 39 paper does not explore the actions of the library director in ensuring

the library is engaging with its stakeholders. Therefore, this paper specifically focuses upon

the role of the library director in ensuring all library staff are engaging with stakeholders and

is unique in examining the different engagement mechanisms used by different university

library types.

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


6

Research Method

This study employed constructivist grounded theory to investigate the experiences of

university library directors in ensuring the library engages with stakeholders. Constructivist

grounded theory was developed in the 1990’s by Kathy Charmaz and is an interpretivist

revision of the original formal or classic grounded theory of Barney Glaser and Anselm

Strauss 40. This research method is necessary when current theories are inadequate for the

phenomenon being examined 41and is suitable for answering what and how questions 42.

Therefore, it is an appropriate method for the research problem investigated here.

In general, grounded theory is characterized by several procedures relating to data collection

and analysis. These include an inductive approach to the research; sampling that aims for

theory development rather than a representative sample; simultaneous data collection and

analysis while also constantly comparing data with data, and data with codes; memo writing

that enables theory development; and a literature review that occurs after theory has been

sufficiently developed 43.

In a constructivist grounded theory, the developed theory is viewed as the result of the

researcher and the participants’ mutually constructed interpretation of multiple realities 44.

The researcher checks the accuracy of the interpretation through active listening during the

interview, follow-up interviews, and in checking that the theory is resonating with

participants 45. The substantive grounded theory is written as a tentative interpretation of the

different responses of participants. A stance of “theoretical agnosticism” 46 allowed the theory

to emerge from analysis of the data.

The main criterion for inclusion of participants in this study was that they had significant

experience as the library director (at least five years) or were leading academic libraries that

are at the forefront of the industry in continually innovating new services, developing staff,

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


7

and fulfilling student expectations. At the beginning of the study, five distinct library types

were identified and the recruitment of two participants from each of these contexts provided

an opportunity for comparison between the different contexts, adding nuance and credibility

to the theory 47.

The range of publicly funded university types in the entire sample, as shown in Table 1,

included: universities of technology from metropolitan areas in Australia; research

universities from regional areas in Australia; regional universities in Australia; metropolitan

elite universities in Australia; and state system universities in the United States. The

Australian public funding system closely resembles that of the U.S. 48, but Australian

universities’ heavy reliance upon government funding has made them less competitive than

their American counterparts. Moreover, in recent years, Australian governments have

pressured them to imitate the mission and financing models of American universities 49.

These demands make a comparison with the strategies of American state system university

libraries important for Australian library directors.

After obtaining human research ethics approval the research commenced, with initial

sampling (December 2014 to June 2015) and theoretical sampling (October to November

2015). The first library directors were identified and recruited through convenience sampling,

with later participants identified through snowball sampling from the recommendations of

earlier interviewees. The interview protocol for the main study (Appendix A) was devised

during the pilot study phase by the lead researcher because the research team considered the

pilot interview protocol was too structured and data forcing 50. The main study interview

protocol began with an open-ended question. This was followed by more conceptually-based

questions if the participant did not answer the first question fully. These questions were

designed to elicit the library directors’ experiences, rather than the interviewer’s interests 51.

Participants were sent a copy of the protocol to peruse prior to the interview and were free to

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


8

answer the main question or some or all related interview questions during the interview,

which took place either face to face or by Skype™.

Table 1 provides details of the participants and their level of participation in the study. The

first participant was interviewed during the pilot phase of the study and was re-interviewed

later with the main study interview protocol (Appendix). We originally interviewed Library

director 10 (D10) as a regional university participant, but during analysis deemed that this

university should be classed as a research university. During the later theoretical sampling

phase, one prior participant (D7) and two new participants (D11 and D12) were recruited to

explore areas of the theory that required refinement 52. Library director 12 (D12) was from a

regional university, and therefore rounded out the thin data for regional universities. While a

sample of 12 participants and 14 interviews is small, a constructivist grounded theory sample

size is determined by the quality of the data, the depth of data saturation, and whether the

theory is substantial and makes sense to researchers and participants 53, 54, 55. Data collection

ceased after 14 interviews because the participants produced high quality data, allowing early

saturation of the relevant themes. To protect the identities of participants and their

universities, no further identifying data is provided in this table.

(Insert Table 1)

It is important to note that the data collection and data comparison and analysis were

simultaneous and constant activity, rather than distinct phases. The immediate transcription

and initial coding of each interview by the lead researcher enabled the pursuit of new areas of

inquiry with later participants 56. However, three distinct phases of analysis included initial,

focused coding and theoretical coding.

Initial coding began by asking questions of the data, fracturing the data, and comparing it

with other data in the same and previous interviews 57. The interview transcripts were coded

into as many codes as possible. As coding progressed with each interview, previous codes

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


9

were refined or re-labelled. After all initial interviews were complete, the lead researcher

analyzed the data using focused coding, which entailed isolating the codes with “greater

analytic power” 58. NVivo™ software assisted the coding process, comparison of the codes

and memo writing. Memo writing aided the analysis of each interview, where emerging

patterns were noted.

Upon the completion of focused coding, it was clear that some areas of inquiry were not

developed sufficiently 59,60. It appeared that the elite university library directors did not

emphasize a team or collaborative culture, as other participants had, and that the data for

regional university libraries was sparse. Therefore, we recruited an extra regional participant

(D12) and an extra elite university library director (D11). To inquire more about the nature

of library reinventions we interviewed participants who had initiated major library re-

structures (D7, D11 and D12). Specific theoretical sampling questions were devised

(Appendix A). At the completion of this stage, the new codes were categorized into the same

categories and focused codes, thus showing that the research had reached saturation, at which

time sampling could cease.

The theoretical coding stage involved defining the focused codes and categories and

arranging them into an integrated theory that specifies their relationships with each other 61.

The categories are codes that are significant, allowing the researcher to raise the analysis

from a descriptive to a conceptual level 62. The sequence of the categories focused firstly

upon the problem, then upon the actions or strategies, and finally, if possible, upon the

consequences of those actions (mechanisms), as shown in the model (Figure 1). Finally, we

interviewed four participants to check that the theory resonated with their experience, thus

adding credibility to the substantive grounded theory 63.

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


10

The Findings

The substantive grounded theory of how library directors ensure academic library

engagement with stakeholders is presented as five categories or themes that explain what is

occurring and why it is occurring 62. As shown in Figure 1, the categories also represent the

following abstract concepts: the library director’s problem; the strategic response; the

organizational culture required; and the mechanisms that deliver the strategy. We also present

the multiple perspectives of participants and make comparisons between university types.

These perspectives are presented in Tables 2 to 6.

The term “engagement” incorporates concepts or phrases such as “liaison”, “promotion”,

“promoting awareness”, “building relationships”, and “collaborating”. Director 4 (D4) states

the consequence of non-engagement with stakeholders is that “if you sit back and wait for

them to ask, often it won’t happen. They’ll sit back and grumble about what they’re not

getting, but you’ll be none the wiser.” Library director 8 (D8) stated that engagement is “an

item on all of our management meeting agendas, and everybody knows it’s a significant

issue.” Library director 5 (D5) noted that English universities included engagement as a

factor in their rankings and therefore this model was copied at the elite university where D5

reports to the Vice Principal for Engagement.

Engaging with stakeholders has a dual purpose. It enables the library to find out the needs of

stakeholders and how the library can meet those needs. It also allows the library to promote

itself, its brand, and its services, thereby maintaining its relevance. Library director 7 (D7)

commented that “by staying engaged you are able to promote what you do and you’re able to

get feedback from those people." Director 4 remarked that to maintain relevance, the library

must “ensure that our stakeholders understand our role in the academic environment and what

we do.”

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


11

The Problem: Diversity of Stakeholders and their Requirements

The participants identified a major challenge for university libraries as the diversity of

stakeholders and their requirements. The participants from some of the regional universities

claimed the biggest challenges because they had more diverse student populations. These

universities tended to the needs of many first-year students who were at risk of dropping out

due to being first in family, low socio-economic status, or low ranking tertiary admission

students.

On the other hand, the elite university libraries of D5 and D6, struggled with the problem of

the entrenched attitude of academic staff toward changes in the library. Library director 6

(D6) expressed frustration about the expectation to maintain print collections, while also

building electronic collections. D5 mentioned the problems the university has had with

academics making public protests (website protests, full-page advertisements in newspapers)

about library changes. Library director 11 (D11) expressed an awareness of this problem in

other universities, and therefore proceeded cautiously with an organizational restructure.

Table 2 (below) illustrates how the participants from different university contexts perceived

the challenges they faced in ensuring the library is engaging with stakeholders.

(Insert Table 2)

Strategy: Stakeholder Engagement Framework

The library directors revealed various strategies to deal with the diversity of stakeholders, and

several participants revealed that the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL)

was preparing an overall engagement framework. According to D5 this was to add “process

and thought to the way that we actually identify who our stakeholders are and develop

strategies that point to each of those different stakeholders.”

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


12

The development of a stakeholder engagement framework involved the following strategies:

developing a whole of organization approach; recognizing different strategies for different

stakeholders; and communicating with stakeholders in their own language. According to D6,

a “whole of organization approach” involves all library staff levels in relationship building

with stakeholders, because “It’s not one person building a relationship with another person,

or even one person developing a relationship with a group.” D8 emphasized the importance

of the library director’s role in liaising with the Deans and Heads of Department and the

library management role in networking with others throughout the university.

There are also different strategies for different stakeholders, and, as D6 stated, the same

message about the library is scaffolded across different levels. The communication channels

and terminology are also different for students and university administrators, for as D3

asserted, the message must be communicated “in a manner and in a language which is

meaningful to your stakeholders.” Library directors 1 and 9 (D1, D9) emphasized the

importance of communicating with administrators in the language of the university, while

students respond well to social media. Table 3 below provides a summary of the data

pertaining to the development of an engagement framework.

(Insert Table 3)

Organizational Culture: Encouraging an Engaged Culture

Developing an engaged organizational culture is important because, as D7 stressed, “You can

push as hard as you like to show how relevant you are, but if that’s not being demonstrated

by your workforce, then it’s not going to go anywhere.” According to participants, an

engaged culture requires a customer focus and a team culture.

A customer focus is established by recruiting staff with a service orientation who are also

active networkers. Staff who network will also collaborate with others on projects. The

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


13

library directors regarded the role of liaison librarians as important in fostering collaboration

between the library and other departments and that staff need to be adaptable and rapidly

responsive to the requests and needs of customers. D8 stated that the library aims to “forge a

reputation” as a “can-do culture.”

The desired collaborative culture is established through a team culture. Team culture is built

by decentralizing decision making structures and empowering staff and teams to make

decisions and solve problems themselves, without referring service problems to supervisors.

This encourages more efficient customer service. The theme of loosening hierarchy and

empowerment of staff was echoed by most participants, as D7 remarked “we want people to

lead no matter what level they are.” However, D8 stated that:

“In some university libraries there is a much more rigorous, hierarchical, and less

democratic way of governing the library. We’re not like that. It’s a much more free,

more open process, but within certain guidelines, nevertheless.”

Working together towards a common vision, according to Library director 12 (D12) is about

“getting them all [staff] on board and feeling like they mattered.” Several participants

remarked that library staff produce better outcomes when working together rather than alone.

The library directors also emphasize open communication with staff by talking to and

consulting with staff and publishing meeting agendas and minutes. This occurred within

either the highly sophisticated communications structure of D1 or a simpler team meeting

culture. Directors 11 and 12 reported that sensitive library restructures required a longer

period of consultation with staff.

Table 4 below provides a summary of the supporting data that the participants provided. All

participants conveyed a strong interest in nurturing a customer-focused, collaborative and

promotional culture, although the elite universities spoke less about agility or flexibility.

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


14

Similarly, while most participants spoke of the importance of a team culture, the participants

from elite universities discussed teams less.

(Insert Table 4)

Mechanisms: Engaging internally within the university

All participants discussed the mechanisms that delivered their strategies for engaging with

their university stakeholders. These included formal mechanisms such as advisory boards and

formal university reviews and informal mechanisms with the various stakeholders.

Engagement with the highest administrative levels of the university was difficult for the

library directors as they are positioned lower in the university structure, but several

participants mentioned the opportunity the institutional repository provides for engagement

with the university executive. While D5 had a specific role in reporting to the Vice Principal,

Engagement, the reporting structure of various library directors suggested that direct

engagement with senior executive was rare, and only D2 had direct contact with the Vice

Chancellor through “strategic walk arounds”.

Collaboration with departments and faculties is achieved informally through networking or

through formal partnerships. Networking was important to many library directors, with D8

emphasizing the power of networks and the need to develop a reputation as a contributor to

strategic networks. Such collaborations included partnering with various university

departments on career services, IT, fundraising and engagement, marketing and

communication, and financial services.

All participants regarded liaison with academic staff as crucial for providing a value-added

service, helping to avert academic staff resistance to change, and enabling collaboration on

projects that promoted the work of academics while promoting the library. The Australian

participants talked at length of the need for better support for researchers because of the

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


15

recent changes to government funding policy. In response, many of the Australian

participants had strengthened their research support teams. Finally, university libraries are

involved in engaging and retaining students by gathering quantitative and qualitative

feedback that helped them to understand student needs.

Table 5 below provides a summary of the formal and informal mechanisms that the library

directors used for engaging with their diverse university stakeholders. As the table shows, D5

was most concerned about engagement and contributed the most data at the time of the

interview. The directors of the two regional university libraries also expressed their focus on

engaging with their stakeholders, with the smaller regional library of D4 struggling in

servicing a smaller cohort of researchers. Library director 12 (D12) used engagement

strategies with staff and students to gain evidence for the library’s restructure.

(Insert Table 5)

Mechanisms: Engaging with external stakeholders

External stakeholders were also important to many participants. Engagement with external

stakeholders included community engagement using library spaces and communications

media. The elite library of D5 had the resources to promote the library through its art gallery

spaces, university and newspaper publications, and art and collection catalogue publications.

Library director 3 (D3) of a regional research university reported using the local newspapers

and electronic media to publicise their unique collections.

Donors were another important stakeholder. For D3, the liaison librarian had an important

role in acquiring collections of specialist research material. The elite university libraries

could raise funds to approach benefactors of money or of special collections (D5 and D11).

External organizations such as the Australian National Data Service (ANDS) and

communities of practice were also nominated as stakeholders (D2, D10).

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


16

The participants also emphasized the importance of the global and local library sector for

sharing ideas and collaboration on projects. The Australian library directors referred

frequently to CAUL (D2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10) and state-based organisations (D4). US Library

director 1 noted the importance of international links while US Director 9 commented on the

importance of liaising with other libraries such as public libraries. Finally, the university

libraries engaged with potential students by running programs for local schools and by having

relationships with various feeder institutions.

Table 6 below provides a summary and comparison of the mechanisms that the university

libraries used in engaging with external stakeholders.

(Insert Table 6)

The Theory of Academic Library Strategic and Cultural Engagement

The integrated substantive theory and model of academic library strategic and cultural

engagement is presented here. The model (Figure 1) shows the relationships (arrows)

between the strategies (boxes) and explains how (text) the library engages with its

stakeholders 64.

(Insert Figure 1)

The model illustrates the process that begins with the agency of the library director who notes

the problems caused by the diversity of stakeholder needs, and with the library’s leadership

group, responds by recognizing the need to know the stakeholders and their needs. This

problem is solved by the strategy of developing a strategic engagement framework for each

stakeholder group. The framework accounts for differences in stakeholder priority, language,

and communication styles. The library director also intentionally and strategically nurtures an

engaged organizational culture. This means all library staff are focused on customer service

and collaborating with other university units, can respond to stakeholder needs in an agile

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


17

way, and can promote the library and its services. The library also requires a team culture that

is encouraged by a less hierarchical organizational structure and reporting structures that

allow teams to make their own decisions without referring service problems to managers.

The double-headed arrow in the model demonstrates the mutual dependency of the strategy

of an engagement framework and an engaged organizational culture that is customer focused

and empowers staff and teams to make service decisions. In short, an engagement strategy

cannot thrive in the absence of an engaged organizational culture, and an engaged culture

does not have momentum without strategy. The intertwined strategy and culture are then

enacted through various mechanisms with the internal and external stakeholders.

Discussion

Variations Between University Contexts

A discussion of the differences in stakeholder engagement between university contexts

requires some caution due to the small size of the sample and the exploratory nature of the

research. However, a major difference between American and Australian participants is that

both American library directors nominated the State, its government and its citizens as their

major stakeholder, while the Australian participants appeared see the university as a business,

with their emphasis upon promoting the library and the university to the wider community.

This approach possibly derives from government funding cuts to Australian universities in

recent years, leading to a focus on creating new business models and seeking funding from

external sources. The new approach is required in Australia because, as D11 remarked,

philanthropy is not a common tradition in Australia as it is in North America.

The elite and technology university library directors were most interested in developing a

holistic approach or framework for engagement. Although all university types regarded

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


18

customer focus and engagement as important, the elite university participants did not mention

flexibility or responsiveness.

While research support was important for all university types, the smaller Australian regional

libraries struggled to service a smaller number of researchers amongst a more diverse student

population. Indeed, the regional libraries appeared to require more engagement activity with

struggling first year and Technical and Further Education (TAFE) students than the larger

metropolitan libraries. While the larger institutions employed more staff for research support,

the staff in regional libraries were required to undertake extra training to increase their

research support capabilities.

The libraries in larger institutions appear to have the resource capacity to employ marketing

or fundraising staff. In contrast, the regional libraries seem to engage with stakeholders at an

individual level. Engagement with external stakeholders shows that elite universities tend to

benefit financially from the goodwill of high profile supporters and alumni, while research

universities in regional areas rely upon the donations of special collections.

Applying the Theory of Academic Library Strategic and Cultural Engagement

Many of the findings of this study reflect Lynda Bourne’s maturity model of stakeholder

relationship management 65. This model derives from project management research and

provides a four-step guideline that includes identifying, prioritizing, mapping the

stakeholders and then implementing various communication strategies. Bourne 66 also argues

that the attitude of stakeholders toward an organization is shaped by several factors including

the culture of the organization, whether stakeholders’ involvement is personally

advantageous or beneficial to the organization, and the depth of financial or emotional

investment. The theory of academic library strategic and cultural engagement differs by

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


19

offering a theory that is specific to academic libraries. It also finds the specific elements of

the culture including a customer-focus, willingness to collaborate with other units and

individuals, responsiveness to stakeholder needs, and promotion of services. The theory also

emphasizes the empowerment of staff to engage with stakeholders and to make service

decisions through team work.

The findings of this study also reflect the literature of Denise Koufogiannakis 67, and Peter

Hernon, Robert Dugan and Joseph Matthews 68, concerning evidence-based library and

information practice (EBLIP). Hernon, Dugan and Matthews state that EBLIP includes the

steps of: asking a relevant question and then “gathering evidence; appraising the validity,

reliability, and applicability of that evidence; applying the evidence to a decision; and

evaluating the impact of the decision” 69. However, the findings of this research emphasize

the need for the library director and senior library management to expend more effort in

developing a holistic framework for engagement and an engaged culture before beginning

EBLIP.

The competing values framework (CVF) of Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn 70, and the

research of other authors 71, 72 state that culture impacts strategy. This research extends this

further by finding an interdependent nature of the relationship between strategy and culture.

The constant engagement with stakeholders helps the library to refine and change services

according to stakeholder feedback, and it enables staff to develop their engagement skills. It

also encourages positive attitudes from stakeholders towards the library when feedback has

been acted upon and when collaborations have been successful.

This research also adds to the ethnographic research of Otero-Boisvert 73 that finds the

library director’s engagement with university administrators is most successful when

persisting in advocacy for new projects over several years, and managing the relationships

associated with projects well. However, this study is significantly different because it focuses

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


20

upon the library director’s agency in ensuring the library is engaging holistically with its

entire range of stakeholders. To support this holistic engagement strategy, staff recruitment

criteria and role descriptions will emphasize attitudes and personal attributes that reflect the

engagement culture.

Significance and Limitations of this Theory

A major implication of this theory of strategic and cultural engagement is that it will assist

the library to attain the collaborative support and commitment of stakeholders through their

increased involvement with the library’s services and activities 74. This is important for the

university because collaborative partnerships reduce the possibility of failure, thus

encouraging more creativity and innovation 75.

Two main factors hampered the research process. Firstly, while researching possible

participants, many were ineligible due to their short time of incumbency in the position. This

was particularly the case in the regional university sector, where it was difficult to find

participants who met the criteria or were willing to take part in the research. A second

regional participant (D12) was secured only during the theoretical sampling stage. To

overcome any perception of lack of credibility for the data from regional university libraries,

D12 was also interviewed in the final interview stage to check that the theory resonated. The

second limitation is that the research does not examine the experiences and perceptions of

other library staff members, and it does not explore the impact of the library on research or

student outcomes. Further research is suggested to test the effect of the library upon its

various stakeholders and the regional university library context.

Conclusion

This study finds that to understand the requirements of the academic library’s stakeholders,

and the efficacy of the library in meeting those needs, the library director develops a

framework for engagement and combines it with a customer-focused, collaborative,

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


21

responsive and self-promoting organisational culture. The culture also involves an egalitarian

and team-based approach to decision making. The library then enacts the engagement

strategy through mechanisms that involve library staff at all levels and are tailored to the

needs and communication style of each stakeholder group. This research advances the

literature about stakeholder engagement by reinforcing the importance of organizational

culture. It provides an original contribution to library and information science literature by

providing an understanding of the role of the library director in leading engagement strategy

and culture. This research also offers a unique insight into the challenges various types of

university libraries face in engaging with their stakeholders.

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


22

1. Daniel Kindström, Christian Kowalkowski, and Erik Sandberg, "Enabling Service Innovation:

A Dynamic Capabilities Approach.” Journal of Business Research 66, no.8 (August 2013): 1063-

1073.

2. Renu Agarwal, Willem Selen, Göran Roos, and Roy Green, eds., The Handbook of Service

Innovation (London: Springer, 2015).

3. Peter Hernon and Joseph R. Matthews, eds., Reflecting on the Future of Academic and Public

Libraries (Chicago: ALA Editions, 2013).

4. Shea-Tinn Yeh and Zhiping Walter, “Determinants of Service Innovation in Academic

Libraries Through the Lens of Disruptive Innovation. ” College & Research Libraries 77, no. 6 (Nov

2016): 795-804.

5. Julie Garrison, Marianne Ryan, and Kathleen DeLong, "Moving up: Positioning for Director

Roles in Academic Libraries." In The Associate University Librarian Handbook : A Resource Guide,

ed. Bradford Lee Eden (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2012): 137-159.

6. Lynda Bourne, Stakeholder Relationship Management : A Maturity Model for Organisational

Implementation (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2016), 93.

7. Ibid, 30.

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


23

8. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass,

2010).

9. Garrison, Ryan and DeLong, "Moving up: Positioning for Director Roles in Academic

Libraries." In The Associate University Librarian Handbook : A Resource Guide, ed. Bradford Lee

Eden (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2012): 137-159.

10. Rebecca Martin, “Recruiting a Library Leader for the 21st Century” In The Academic Library

Director: Reflections on a Position in Transition, ed. F. D’Andraia (New York: Routledge, 2013)

11. Bourne, “Stakeholder Relationship Management: A Maturity Model for Organisational

Implementation ” ( Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2009).

12. Fiona Harland, How the University Librarian Ensures the Relevance of the Library to

Stakeholders: A Constructivist Grounded Theory. PhD dissertation, QUT, 2017,

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/106745/

13. Fiona Harland, Glenn Stewart and Christine Bruce, “Ensuring the Academic Library's

Relevance to Stakeholders: The Role of the Library Director” Journal of Academic Librarianship

43, no. 5 (2017): 397-408. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.009

14. Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2014), 230.

15. A. Parasuraman, "Assessing and Improving Service Performance for Maximum Impact:

Insights from a Two-Decade-Long Research Journey." Performance Measurement and Metrics 5,

no.2 (2004): 45-52.

16. Rachel Esson, Alison Stevenson, Maureen Gildea, and Sue Roberts, "Library Services for

the Future: Engaging with our Customers to Determine Wants and Needs." Library Management 33,

no. 8/9, (2012): 469-478, doi: 10.1108/01435121211279830.


COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


24

17. Ben Wynne, Simon Dixon, Neil Donohue, and Ian Rowlands, "Changing the Library Brand:

A Case Study." New Review of Academic Librarianship 0, no.0 (2016): 1-13, doi:

10.1080/13614533.2016.1156000.

18. Kayo Denda, "Developing Interview Skills and Visual Literacy: A New Model of

Engagement for Academic Libraries." Portal : Libraries and the Academy 15, no.2 (2015): 299-314.

19. Kayo Denda and Jennifer Hunter, "Building 21st Century Skills and Creating Communities:

A Team-Based Engagement Framework for Student Employment in Academic Libraries." Journal of

Library Administration 56, no. 3 (2016): 251-265. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2015.1121662.

20. Mark Robertson, "Perceptions of Canadian Provosts on The Institutional Role of Academic

Libraries." College & Research Libraries 76, no. 4 (2015): 490-511. doi: 10.5860/crl.76.4.490.

21. Roisin Gwyer, "Identifying and Exploring Future Trends Impacting on Academic Libraries:

A Mixed Methodology Using Journal Content Analysis, Focus Groups, and Trend Reports." New

Review of Academic Librarianship 21, no. 3 (2015): 269-285. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2015.1026452.

22. L. Johnson, S. Adams Becker, V. Estrada, and A. Freeman, NMC Horizon Report: 2015

Library Edition. (Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium, 2015), http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-

nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf

23. Zelda Chatten and Sarah Roughley, "Developing Social Media to Engage and Connect at the

University of Liverpool Library." New Review of Academic Librarianship 0, no.0 (2016): 1-8. doi:

10.1080/13614533.2016.1152985.

24. Geraldine Delaney and Jessica Bates, "Envisioning the Academic Library: A Reflection on

Roles, Relevancy and Relationships." New Review of Academic Librarianship 21, no. 1 (2015): 30-

51. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2014.911194.

25. Laura Saunders, "Academic Libraries' Strategic Plans: Top Trends and Under-Recognized

Areas." The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41, no. 3 (2015): 285-291. doi:

10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.011.

http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf


COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


25

26. Matthew P. Long and Roger C. Schonfeld, "Ithaka S+R US Library Survey 2013." ([New

York]: Ithaka, 2014)

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Long+Schonfield+Ithaka&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&a

s_sdtp=.

27. Yvonne Nalani Meulemans, and Allison Carr, "Not at Your Service: Building Genuine

Faculty-Librarian Partnerships." Reference Services Review 41, no. 1 (2013): 80-90. doi:

10.1108/00907321311300893.

28. Jared Hoppenfeld and Elizabeth Malafi, “Engaging with Entrepreneurs in Academic and

Public Libraries." Reference Services Review 43, no. 3 (2015): 379-399. doi: 10.1108/RSR-02-2015-

0011.

29. Belinda Tiffen and Ashley England, "Engaging with Clients and Personalising Services at

UTS Library: Measuring the Value for Libraries and their Clients." The Australian Library Journal

60, no. 3 (2011): 237-247. doi: 10.1080/00049670.2011.10722620.

30. Steven D. Shapiro, “Engaging a Wider Community: The Academic Library as a Center for

Creativity, Discovery and Collaboration.” New Review of Academic Librarianship 22, no. 1 (2016):

24-42. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2015.1087412.

31. Finbar Galligan and Sharon Dyas-Correia, "Altmetrics: Rethinking the Way we Measure."

Serials Review 39, no. 1 (2013): 56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.01.003.

32. Johnson et al., “NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Library Edition” (Austin, TX: The New Media

Consortium, 2015), http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf

33. Melissa Dennis, "Outreach Initiatives in Academic Libraries, 2009-2011." Reference

Services Review 40, no. 3 (2012): 368-383. doi: 10.1108/00907321211254643.

34. Saunders, "Academic Libraries' Strategic Plans Top Trends and Under-Recognized Areas."

The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41, no. 3 (2015): 285-291. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.011.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Long+Schonfield+Ithaka&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=Long+Schonfield+Ithaka&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp


COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


26

35. Shapiro, “Engaging a Wider Community: The Academic Library as a Center for Creativity,

Discovery and Collaboration.” New Review of Academic Librarianship 22, no. 1 (2016): 24-42. doi:

10.1080/13614533.2015.1087412.

36. Maria Otero-Boisvert, "Funding the Academic Library: An Ethnographic Study." PhD

dissertation, QUT, 2015, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/84749/.

37. Robertson, "Perceptions of Canadian Provosts on The Institutional Role of Academic

Libraries." College & Research Libraries 76, no. 4 (2015): 490-511. doi: 10.5860/crl.76.4.490.

38. Linh Cuong Nguyen, "Establishing a Participatory Library Model: A Grounded Theory

Study." The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41, no. 4 (2015): 475-487.

doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.018.

39. Ibid.

40. Kathy Charmaz, "Shifting the Grounds: Constructivist Grounded Theory Methods," in

Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation, ed. Janice M. Morse, Phyllis Noerager

Stern, Juliet Corbin, Barbara Bowers, Kathy Charmaz and Adele E. Clarke (Walnut Creek, CA:

Left Coast Press, 2009), 127-154.

41. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm G. Strauss, Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies

for Qualitative Research. (New York: Aldine, 1967), 32.

42. Kathy Charmaz, “Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method,” in

Handbook of Constructionist Research, ed.. J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (New York: Guilford

Press, 2008), 397-412.

43. Charmaz, “Constructing Grounded Theory”, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2014).

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/84749/

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


27

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Karen Henwood and Nick Pidgeon, "Grounded Theory in Psychological Research," in

Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design, ed.

Paul M. Camic, Jean E. Rhodes and Lucy Yardley (Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association, 2003), 131-155.

47. Charmaz, “Constructing Grounded Theory”, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2014) .

48. Simon Marginson, and Marijk van der Wende, "The New Global Landscape of Nations

and Institutions," in Higher Education to 2030, ed. OECD (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2009), 17-62.

49. Simon Marginson, “Nation-Building Universities in a Global Environment: The Case of

Australia”, Higher Education 43, no. 3 (2002): 409-428. doi: 10.1023/A:1014691304966

50. Harland, “How the University Librarian Ensures the Relevance of the Library to

Stakeholders” PhD dissertation, QUT, 2017, 105. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/106745/

51. Charmaz, “Constructing Grounded Theory”, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2014), 64.

52. Kathy Charmaz, “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods” , in Handbook

of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage, 2000)

53. Glenn A. Bowen, “Naturalistic Inquiry and the Saturation Concept: A Research Note”,


COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


28

Qualitative Research 8, no. 1 (2008): 137-152. doi: 10.1177/1468794107085301

54. Mark Mason, “Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews”,

Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11, no. 3 (2010) http://www.qualitative-

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3028

55. Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson, “How Many Interviews are Enough?: An

Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability”, Field Methods, 18, no. 1 (2006): 59-82. doi:

10.1177/1525822x05279903


57. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm G. Strauss, Discovery of Grounded Theory : Strategies

for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine, 1967, 106.


59. Harland, “How the University Librarian Ensures the Relevance of the Library to

Stakeholders” PhD dissertation, QUT, 2017, 129. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/106745/


61. Ibid, 341.

62. Ibid, 337.

63. David A. Whetten, "What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?" The Academy of

Management Review 14, no. 4 (1989): 490-495.

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3028

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3028


COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


29

64. Ibid.

65. Bourne, “Stakeholder Relationship Management: A Maturity Model for Organisational

Implementation ” ( Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2009).

66. Ibid, 94.

67. Denise Koufogiannakis, “Determinants of Evidence Use in Academic Librarian Decision

Making.” College & Research Libraries 77, no.1 (Jan 2015): 100-114. doi:10.5860/crl.76.1.100

68. Peter Hernon, Robert E. Dugan, and Joseph R. Matthews, Getting Started with

Evaluation, (Chicago: American Library Association, 2014).

69. Ibid, 22.

70. Kim S. Cameron and Robert E. Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture,

(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011).

71. A. A. van der Maas, “Strategy Implementation in a Small Island Community: An Integrative

Framework.” PhD dissertation, Erasmus University, 2008, http://repub.eur.nl/pub/12278/

72. S. A. A. Ahmadi, Y. Salamzadeh, M. Daraei, and J. Akbari, “Relationship Between

Organizational Culture and Strategy Implementation: Typologies and Dimensions.” Global

Business and Management Research, 4, no.3/4, (2012): 286-299.

73. Otero-Boisvert, “Funding the Academic Library: An Ethnographic Study." PhD

dissertation, QUT, 2015, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/84749/.

http://repub.eur.nl/pub/12278/

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/84749/

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


30

74. Bourne, “Stakeholder relationship management: A Maturity Model for Organisational

Implementation” (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2016).

75. Bieraugel, Mark, "Managing Library Innovation Using the Lean Startup Method."

Library Management 36, no. 4/5 (2015): 351-361.

Appendix A

1. Main interview question

1) How do you maintain the relevance of your library to your stakeholders and extended

community at the present time?

2. Related interview questions

2) Who are the stakeholders in your library at the present time?

3) What do you perceive to be the challenges facing your library at the present time?

4) How do you discover the challenges that affect your library?

5) How do you deal with these challenges?

6) How do you know that you and your staff are dealing with these challenges adequately?

7) Can you think of anything else which helps the library to achieve relevance to its

stakeholders?

3. Theoretical sampling questions

1) How did you make the decisions about your library restructure?

2) Are there any factors that indicate success in maintaining the library’s relevance to the

university?

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


31

TABLE 1.

Range of University Libraries in the Research Sample

Participant Code University Type Location

Library director 1 (D1)

2 initial sampling interviews

State system university Metropolitan, United States

Library director 2 (D2) University of Technology Metropolitan, Australia

Library director 3 (D3) Research university Regional city, Australia

Library director 4 (D4) Regional university Regional, Australia

Library director 5 (D5) Elite university Metropolitan, Australia

Library director 6 (D6) Elite university Metropolitan, Australia


Initial and theoretical

sampling interviews

Research university Metropolitan/regional, Australia

Library director 8 (D8) University of Technology Metropolitan, Australia

Library director 9 (D9) State system university Metropolitan, United States

Library director 10 (D10) Research university Regional city, Australia


Theoretical sampling

interview

Elite university Metropolitan, Australia


Theoretical sampling

interview

Regional university Regional, Australia

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


32

TABLE 2.

Summary of Data for The Problem: The Diversity of Stakeholders and their Requirements

Focused

Codes

State System

Universities

(United States)

Technology

Universities

(Australia)

Research

Universities

(Regional

Australia)

Regional

Universities

(Australia)

Elite

Universities

(Australia)

Coping with

diversity of

stakeholders

*Stakeholder

diversity (D2,

D8)

*Student

diversity (D7) *Student

diversity (D4) * Stakeholder

diversity (D5,

D6)

Stakeholder

requirements *First year

students (D7) *First year

students (D4) *Expectations of

academic staff

(D5, D6, D11)

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


33

TABLE 3.

Summary of Data for Strategy: Stakeholder Engagement Framework

Focused Codes State System

Universities

(United States)

Technology

Universities

(Australia)

Research

Universities

(Regional

Australia)

Regional

Universities

(Australia)

Elite

Universities

(Australia)

Different

strategies for

different

stakeholders

* Different

strategies for

different

stakeholders

(D12)

*Framework

developed by

national

University

Librarians

network (D5,

D6)

*Different

strategies for

different

stakeholders

(D5, D6)

Whole

organization

approach

*Engagement at

all levels (D2,

D8)

*Engagement

at all levels

(D5, D6)

Using

stakeholder

language

*Using the

language of the

university (D1,

D9)

*Honest

communication

(D8)

* Using

stakeholder

language (D3,

D10)

*Don’t over-

promise on

service delivery

(D4)

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


34

TABLE 4.

Summary of Data for Organizational Culture: Encouraging an Engaged Culture


Universities

(United States)

Technology

Universities

(Australia)

Research

Universities

(Regional

Australia)

Regional

Universities

(Australia)

Elite

Universities

(Australia)

Customer-

focused service

*Customer

focused service

(D1)

*Customer

focused

service (D2,

D8)

*Customer

focused service

(D3, D7, D10)

*Customer

focused service

(D4, D12)

*Customer

focused service

(D5, D11)

Fostering

collaboration

with

stakeholders

*Staff can

naturally

collaborate (D1)

*Partnering

through “library

as lab” (D1)

*Ensuring

staff are

networking/

partnering

with

stakeholders

(D2, D8)

*Recruiting

staff with

outward

/collaborative

focus (D7)

*Restructuring

to ensure

collaboration &

engagement

(D12)

*Partnering

librarians/library

with faculties

(D5, D6)

Responsiveness

to stakeholder

requirements

Responsive,

flexible, agile

(D1)

Responsive,

flexible, agile

(D2, D8)

* Responsive,

flexible, agile

(D10)

*Responsive,

nimble,

flexible (D4)

Promoting the

library’s

services

*Presenting,

defending,

communicating,

persuading

university

leaders (D1)

*Promoting

the library

(D2)

*Forging a

reputation

(D8)

*Creating

visual identity

(D8)

*Promoting the

library (D3,

D7, D10)

*Engaging

(D12)

*Growth area of

engagement &

fundraising (D5,

D11)

Teams with

egalitarian

approach to

reporting

structures

*Wary of

hierarchical

language (D1)

*Less rigid or

hierarchical

(D8)

*All staff

members on

project teams

(D10)

*All staff may

need to lead

projects (D7)

*All staff

involved in

environmental

scan (D12)

Communicate

openly with

staff

*Publishing

agendas and

minutes on

internet (D1)

*Informing

staff about

developments

in university

*Library goals

published on

website (D10)

*Open 2-way

communication

with Director

and Vice-

*Lengthy

consultation and

communication

with staff/trade

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


35

*Communication

systems design

(D1)

*Team meeting

culture (D1, D9)

and sector

(D8)

*Collegiate

sharing of

information

during

restructure

(D7)

Chancellor

(D4)

* Lengthy

consultation &

communication

with staff

during

restructure

(D12)

unions during

restructure

(D11)

Encouraging

collaboration

amongst staff

*Collaborative

staff culture (D1)

*Staff naturally

collaborate (D1)

*Joint decision

making (D7)

* Encouraging

communication

of ideas (D7)

*Staff

encouraged to

communicate

ideas (D12)

Working

towards a

common vision

*Library staff

working together

to produce

outcomes (D1,

D9)*S

*Library staff

working

together to

produce

better

outcomes

(D8)

*Library staff

working

together to

produce better

outcomes (D7

*Ensuring staff

understand the

vision of the

future library

(D12)

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


36

TABLE 5.

Summary of data for Mechanisms: Engaging Internally within the University


Universities

(United

States)

Technology

Universities

(Australia)

Research

Universities

(Regional

Australia)

Regional

Universities

(Australia)

Elite

Universities

(Australia)

Formal

mechanisms

*Library board

(D9)

*Formal

reviews (D2)

*Library board

(D7)

*Formal

reviews (D4)

*Library board

(D11)

*Formal

reviews (D6,

D11)

Highest

administrative

levels

*Senior

administrators

(D1)

*Senior

executive (D8)

*Vice

Chancellor

(D2)

*Deputy Vice

Chancellor

(D2)

*Deans and

department

heads (D8)

*Vice and

Deputy Vice

Chancellor

(D10)

*Director of

Information

(D4)

*Importance of

open two-way

communication

(D4)

*Vice Principal

(D5)

*Deans and

Department

heads (D5, D6)

*Vice

Chancellor’s

retreat (D5)

*Academic

Board (D5, D6)

Departments

and Faculties:

Informal

*Library as lab

(D1)

*Spending

time with

faculty (D9)

*Strategic

networking

(D8)

*Informal

meetings with

colleagues

(D3)

*Frontline

client services

(D4)

Formal

partnerships

*Divisional or

branch

colleagues (D2)

*Divisional or

branch

colleagues

(D7)

*Divisional or

branch

colleagues (D4)

*Other

administrative

areas (D6)

Project teams

*Cross

university

project teams

(D8)

*Cross

university

project teams

(D3, D10)

*Cross

university

project teams

(D4)

University

committees

*Committees

(D1)

*Committees

(D2, D8)

*Committees

(D3, D7)

*Committees

(D4)

*Committees

(D6)

IT

Department

*IT (D2) *IT (D3, D10)

Learning and

teaching

*Learning and

teaching (D1)

*Learning and

Teaching (D2)

*Learning and

Teaching (D7)

*Learning and

Teaching (D6)

Various

*Careers

services (D8)

*Fundraising

& Engagement

(D3)

*Marketing &

Communication

(D5)

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


37

*Design

thinking

workshops (D8)

*English

language

assistance (D8)

*Research

services (D10)

*Student

services (D5)

*Financial

services (D6)

Liaison work

with academic

staff

*Spending

time with

faculty (D9)

*Liaison

librarians (D2,

D8)

*Liaison

librarians (D3,

D10)

*Liaison

librarians (D4)

*Liaison

librarians

(D6, D11)

*Attending

faculty meetings

(D5)

Collaboration

on projects

*Library as lab

(D1)

*Research

collaboration

for curated

exhibitions

(D8)

*Testing

electronic

research

notebooks (D2)

*Research

collaboration

for curated

exhibitions

(D10)

*Testing new

systems and

products (D7)

*Including

academics in

focus groups

(D12)

*MOOCS (D5)

Supporting

researchers:

Expanding

research

support teams

*Library as lab

(D1)

*Mutually

beneficial (D1)

*Expanding

research

support team

(D2)

*Expanding

research

support team

(D10)

*Outreach to

researchers

(D3, D7)

*Academic

board (D5)

Engaging and

retaining

students:

Knowing

student needs

*Knowing

student needs

(D9)

*Knowing

student needs

(D2, D8)

*Understanding

student culture

(D8)

*Knowing

student needs

(D3, D7)

*Knowing

student needs

(D4)

*Knowing

student needs

(D5)

Gaining

quantitative

feedback

*Survey

methods (D9)

*Survey

methods (D2,

D8)

*Statistics (D2)

*Survey

methods (D3,

D7)

*Statistics (D3,

D10)

*Survey

methods (D12)

*Survey

methods (D5,

D6)

*Statistics (D6)

Gaining

qualitative

feedback:

Formal

methods

*Participatory

design (D1)

*Meeting with

student

government

(D9)

*Focus groups

(D3, D7)

*Participatory

design (D12)

*Focus groups

(D5)

Gaining

qualitative

feedback:

Informal

methods

*Daily student

engagements

(D9)

*Observation

(D1)

*Online

engagement

(D8)

*Observation

(D8)

*Student

internships

(D8)

*Daily student

engagements

(D10)

*Daily student

engagements

(D4)

*Online

engagement

(D5)

*Student

curators (D5)

*Employing

students (D5)

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


38

*Employing

students (D8)

Responding to

feedback

*Responding

to feedback

(D9)

*Responding to

feedback (D2,

D8)

*Reporting

back to students

(D2)

*Responding

to feedback

(D7)

*Responding to

feedback (D4)

* Reporting

back to students

(D4)

*Responding to

feedback (D5)

* Reporting

back to students

(D5)

Promoting the

library to

students

*Posters (D2)

*Social media

(D8)

*Social media

(D3)

*Posters (D5)

*Social media

(D5)

*Library events

(D5)

TABLE 6.

Summary of data for Mechanisms: Engaging with External Stakeholders

Focused

Codes

State System

Universities

(United States)

Technology

Universities

(Australia)

Research

Universities

(Regional

Australia)

Regional

Universities

(Australia)

Elite

Universities

(Australia)

Community *Social media

(D3)

*Local media

outlets (D3)

*Social media

(D5)

*Publications for

exhibitions (D5)

*University

newspaper

promotions (D5)

Donors *Special

collections

librarian liaison

with donors

(D3)

*Soliciting

monetary

donations -

fundraising/adva

ncement manager

(D5, D11)

External

organizations

*Australian

National Data

Service (D2)

*Australian

National Data

Service (D10)

*Communities

of practice

(D10)

Library

sector

Other libraries

(D1, D9)

*Research

collaboration

(D1)

*Other

universities

(D1)

*Networks of

University

Librarians

(D2)

*Research

collaboration

(D2)

*Networks of

University

Librarians (D3,

D7, D10)

*Networks of

University

Librarians

(D4)

*Networks of

University

Librarians (D5,

D6)

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


39

Schools and

feeder

institutions

*Schools (D2)

*Feeder

institutions

(D8)

*Schools (D3)

*Colleges of

technical and

further

education (D7)

*Schools (D4)

* Colleges of

technical and

further

education

(D4)

*Schools (D6)

FIGURE 1.

The Model of Academic Library Strategic and Cultural Engagement with Academic

Library Stakeholders

COLLEGE &

RESEARCH L

IBRARIE

S PRE-P

RINT


40

Internal Engagement Mechanisms

Formal mechanisms

University executive

Informal networking with faculties

Formal partnerships and projects

Liaison with academic staff

Supporting researchers

Engaging and retaining students

Quantitative and qualitative feedback

Responding to feedback

Promotional work

Strategy of Stakeholder Engagement Framework

Different strategies for different stakeholders

Whole organization approach

Using stakeholder language

Agency of the Library director

The Problem

Coping with stakeholder diversityCoping with stakeholder requirements

Strategy of Engaged Culture

Customer-focused

Collaborating with stakeholders

Responsive to stakeholders

Promoting the library

Egalitarian Team culture

Open communication with library staff

Collaborative staff culture

Working toward a common vision

External Engagement

Mechanisms

Social and traditional media

promotion with local

community

Personal liaison for monetary

and special collections

Collaborating with communities

of practice

Networking with library sector

Working with schools and

feeder institutions

research libraries pre-print bruce et al 2018.pdf · the studies of melissa dennis 3, saunders 34...

Documents